Talk:Ontario Highway 55/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

No dab or external link issues.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing is fine. I have a comment below, but it doesn't impact the status of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Nothing of note here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The references and referencing look good. I would suggest that the map for fn4 have the publisher flipped to Last, First, unless it's a company named after a person. FN 13 should have a full citation given with the information from the paper (reporter, paper name, date, etc).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The caption for the photo might be considered a complete sentence needing a period... I'll let you judge that one though.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Really minor comments that don't impact listing the article. I give it the green +. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the first short paragraph ("A former Highway 55 designation connected Highway 6 and the QEW with Highway 53, passing through the Mountain district of Hamilton; this route was decommissioned in 1961. The more recent designation was applied in 1970, following the establishment Niagara Region.") in the History section seems to be unnecessary.

Rather than creating separate articles I tend to explain past uses of a number. Keeps things organized for our readers. Fixed up that ref as well! Thanks for the review :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

the article is looking really good, nice job.Beefcake6412 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)